In 1989, plaintiff’s decedent, Raymond Vadnais brought this suit against defendants, Dr. Vernick and Beth Israel, alleging discrimination in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Mr. Vadnais claimed that Dr. Vernick, an employee of the Beth Israel’s Ear Nose and Throat Clinic, refused to perform elective ear surgery on him because …Read more

The Appellants brought this challenge to the constitutionality of an Alabama statute which authorized the Alabama Department of Correction’s (DOC) policy of mandatory testing of all present and future Alabama state prisoners for HIV antibodies, as well as the forced segregation of HIV-positive inmates. Two classes were involved in the action: the Appellant class, which …Read more

In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Service Act (the Act), which provided federal funding for family planning services. Section 1008 of the Act prohibited the use of Title X federal funding “for programs where abortion [was] a method of family planning.” The Regulations to the Act (the Regulations), introduced by the …Read more

The Appellants brought this case challenging an amendment to the Minors’ Consent to Health Services Act (the Act) on the basis that it violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Subdivision 2 of the Act provided, with certain exceptions, that no abortion shall be performed on a …Read more

The Respondents, including a facility that provides abortions, a physician who performs abortions, and a minor woman who sought an abortion, brought suit challenging the constitutional validity of Ohio’s Amended Substitute House Bill 319, which made it a criminal offence, except in four specified circumstances, for a physician or other person to perform an abortion …Read more

The appellant, Mr Borowski, challenged the validity of s 251(4), (5) and (6) of the Canadian Criminal Code on the basis that the provisions contravened the rights of the fetus. He argued these provisions allowed for abortions to occur in circumstances that were too liberal, and, as such, they infringed a fetus’s rights to life, …Read more

Reproductive Health Services (RHS), a non-profit organization, brought this class action suit challenging the constitutionality of a Missouri law (the Act) regulating the performance of abortions. The Act did the following: Set forth, in the preamble, that the “life of each human being begins at conception,” and that “unborn children have protectable interests in life, …Read more

Section 251(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada (the Code) permitted abortions to be performed only at accredited hospitals and then with approval from the performing hospital’s therapeutic abortion committee. Drs. Morgentaler, Smoling, and Scott had together established an abortion clinic in Toronto to perform abortions not approved by a therapeutic abortion committee.  Following public …Read more

In 1985 the Petitioners wrote a letter to the Court regarding the deteriorating state of the Ranchi Mansik Arogyashala, a mental hospital (the Hospital) in Bihar. The Court treated it as a public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to visit the Hospital and submit a …Read more

This writ petition had been filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution (right to move the Supreme Court for violation of fundamental rights), as a result of a letter outlining the condition of women in a “care home.” It was alleged in the letter that female inmates were made to live …Read more